For the first three days of this week the most important climate change conference of the year is being hosted by the Heartland Institute at the Chicago Hilton. Billed as the 7th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-7), the event offers something no other conference does — the opportunity to hear from, and casually meet with, dozens of the world’s top climate change skeptics speaking in a language that anyone can understand.

Fortunately for politicians and government officials, ICCC-7 gets underway just as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit of Heads of State and Government concludes less than two miles away. While ICCC-7 is open to everyone, it is especially important that our NATO representatives extend their visit to the Windy City long enough to take in at least part of Heartland’s event. They have heard plenty over the past twenty years from Al Gore and his allies at the UN, mainstream media, the environmental movement, and government-funded scientists. Our leaders now must hear the other side of the story if they are to have any chance of developing policies that make sense in the real world.

Many politicians are starting to recognize that the climate alarmist movement is disintegrating. To prepare themselves for a new realty, one in which most of the public see “stopping global warming” as an expensive and useless albatross weighing down societies already mired in economic distress, government officials need to understand why the wheels are falling off the climate scare. They also must learn how to properly defend very different strategic positions on climate as basic economics forces them to wind down many of today’s nonsensical green energy plans. The current strategy of NATO leaders to employ climate alarmist rhetoric to prop up economically ruinous policy will not work much longer.

Incredibly, aside from a small group of U.S. politicians as well as one from the United Kingdom (MEP Roger Helmer) and one from the Czech Republic (President Vaclav Klaus), not a single NATO official or politician is slated to attend ICCC-7. They are obviously too frightened to be seen in the company of those who dare question political correctness on climate and alternative energy. But a far greater problem awaits political leaders who continue to turn a deaf ear to well-qualified alternative voices on these topics. They will, in the not too distant future, be seen as having betrayed their countries’ economic futures simply for short-term political convenience. This week they can learn about the scientifically stronger side of the climate debate by taking a ten dollar taxi ride up Michigan Avenue and quietly slipping into ICCC-7. Admission is free for government officials, and organizers say that only a quick advance notice and proper identification is needed for them to gain entry.

So, what would NATO officials learn at ICCC-7?

First they will discover that climate realists, as skeptics prefer to be called, are not evil, politically extreme right wingers focused on making a profit no matter the environmental damage. Most realists care deeply about the state of the natural world and want policies that reduce air, land, and water pollution and protect species at risk. They want their children to live in a world that is cleaner, more peaceful, and more prosperous than they inherited themselves. And the best way to accomplish that, presenters at ICCC-7 will demonstrate, is to base policy decisions on real science, politically correct or not. Hence the theme of the conference, “Real Science, Real Choices.”

Our leaders would also be able to attend and participate in short, easy-to-understand briefings with leading realists — scientists, economists, communications and policy experts from major universities, research establishments and think tanks — concerning the latest climate change developments. This includes not only up-to-date climate realist science, energy, and economics findings, but also the most recent research about science communications and strategy formulation on climate.

Perhaps most interesting will be Tuesday’s two hour breakfast discussion addressing the April 10th open letter sent to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden from former astronauts and scientists — including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center — requesting that the agency refrain from including unproven remarks supporting climate alarmism in the media. “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS [NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies], that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data,” wrote the 49 former NASA leaders. Tuesday’s panelists will include the only scientist to walk on the Moon, Apollo 17 astronaut Dr. Harrison Schmitt, and Apollo 7 Command Module Pilot Walter Cunningham. Both of them signed the open letter and contest NASA’s climate alarmism.

For their own benefit, and that of their citizens, NATO leaders and their strategists must quickly get up to speed on what climate realists have been saying for years. ICCC-7 is a crash course they cannot afford to miss.

21 Comments, 11 Threads

1.
Alarmed Pig Farmer

A few years ago, commenting on complaints about U.S. foreign policy coming from leaders in Europe, Mark Steyn made a wisecrack about who wouldn’t wanna belong to a club where somebody else took all the risks and paid most of the bills.

He was talking about NATO. The basis underlying that and our other “alliances” demonstrate that loyalty purchased is unreliable loyalty.

As the Holy Prophet Mohammed said (those are Tim Russert’s words): “If I take an oath and later find something else better than that, then I do what is better and expiate my oath.” (Bukhari Vol 7 Bk 67 Nbr 427).

That’s why Islam is such a wonderful religion, and generates such advanced cultures.
If your word has no meaning, no decision can be made upon it, and you descend into petty sniping and bickering, advancing nothing. The term “Lying Arab” is hardly new. Could that be why their world is one stinking collection of crapholes, mired in lies and delusion?
That aside, we should’ve told NATO to take a flying leap in 1970, when they started really pushing the socialist garbage while we picked up the tab by paying for their defense. We still are, except now we borrow or print to find the dough. And they’re still going broke!
Besides, it’s not an oath, it’s a treaty. You’re only in a treaty until you decide you’re not. I guess if we just stopped having all these stupid summits, (like we don’t have email or teleconferencing) the summit business would really take a hit. The unemployed ice sculpture artists alone would really hurt the economy, I’m sure!
Isn’t that how Obamanomics works?

The wondrous thing about his program is has no end. No, I don’t mean that it just keeps on going, and it’s true the guy never shuts up, I mean that it recognizes no consequence for itself, no outcome, no end.

Thus we have the Senate violating the law for the third straight year by not passing a budget. Then there’s the now generally accepted idea that there will be no cost after years of zero interest rates, there’ll be no price to pay for that. If that were so, why wouldn’t we always have a national interest rate of zero?

Maybe Bill and Lou should take up that weighty question. God knows Mitt won’t do it. And there’s no solace that Dr. Paul will take no pleasure in saying I told you so a few years from now.

I’m all for free speech and individual liberty. I believe those ideas may be bedrocks of our republic. But there are limits to free speech. Thus, one cannot enter a movie house and scream “fire” when there is no fire. Such people should be punished for causing needless panic and possible disorder. I think the same thought process should be applied to these so-called climate change skeptics. We’re not talking about some nit-wit who puts a few movie goers in jeopardy. We’re talking about “scientists” who endanger the very life of mankind (say nothing of non-man species) with their blasphemous denial of truth! It is nothing short of genocide, nay, holocaust denial (no offense meant to the many Muslim readers out there) to stand before an audience and say, “there is not global climate alteration!” Such people need to be arrested and charged forthwith! Re-education is in order! This is a life and death struggle as has never been seen before in the annals of mankind! Those who dare vilify the truth must be dealt with harshly! This is how we shall ensure the life of man and put in place an ordered society, based upon purity of blood and strict enforcement of social codes! Amen!

Why would these people bother to go to the conference. Global warming, global cooling, or climate change isn’t about the climate or anything changing. Its about taxing you and separating you from your money—period. These schemes are pushed by the globalists, like George Soros. It constraints you and empowers government. He likes to think himself as a god on earth. Pulling strings and making things happen. And always making money,money,money.

I wish that “climate change” true believers would just blow away. When I was growing up in the 1970s, there were all sorts of articles (even in Newsweek magazine) saying that we were entering a new “Ice Age” and that we would all freeze to death. Now we’re all going to burn to death, but India and China don’t have to buy into this because, for some reason, they are special and don’t want their businesses to have to pay for it, even though these two countries put together represent well over 2 billion people. Yet unless the United States and Europe, roughly 600 million people, buy into this madness, the world will end. I’ll tell you what. Let the Chinese and the Indians worry about it. I’m going to take my car out to the local steak house and have dinner. That should drive Al Gore nuts. My day is complete.

The sponsor of this conference should be an immediate tip-off (Heartland Institute) that there won’t be a balanced presentation of the issues. One can also investigate who is influential in the International Climate Science Coalition. The E.D. and author of this piece, Tom Harris, is a mechanical engineer. Brian Leyland is also an engineer. Terry Dunleavy is a journalist and a wine entrepreneur. Not a whole lot of science background related to climate change there.

The main person behind the ICSC is a Professor Robert Carter from Queensland, Australia. He seems to have some background in climate science, being a paleoclimatologist as well as a geologist. But he doesn’t appear to have much of a following. As an example, he wrote an article in a 2009 journal that was immediately rebutted by 9 other scientists. I haven’t read the article and don’t know the circumstances. But in the academic fields, peer review and consensus is very important. There is more for those who want to do a Google.

#4 Libertyship: “…..India and China don’t have to buy into this……” Funny because China seems to be moving rapidly to corner the world markets on manufacturing of solar panels.”

SteveB/Colorado: We are simpatico, my friend! The so-called “climate change deniers” are as ignorant as ignorant can be. Reminds me of the saying, “stupid is as handsome does”, or whatever it is. These “Deniers” must be held accountable. In an ordered society, based upon real upward-downward social structures based upon purity of blood, such Deniers would be held accountable for their heresay. Keep up the good fight my friend! I too should change my posting name to the area I live in, such as “LovelyEarth/Upper East Side Manhattan”. Or maybe, “LovelyEarth/NewYorkNY$$”!

Tom Harris, is a mechanical engineer. Brian Leyland is also an engineer. Terry Dunleavy is a journalist and a wine entrepreneur. Not a whole lot of science background related to climate change there.

Guess what, Steve B? You might live in a segregated world where only the self-anointed are allowed to opine on science, but engineers are more enlightened. They don’t get that sort of degree without actually knowing and applying the scientific method, with a serious study of mathematics, chemistry, physics and thermodynamics.

It will come as a shock, but so-called ‘climate scientists’ do not have special licenses that trump those fields of study – in fact, they are responsible for properly applying those disciplines, and are properly busted for misusing their titles when spewing atmospheric bullshit to score grants from political true believers. And if anyone is, an engineer is absolutely qualified to question the work of ‘climate scientists’ – certainly more so than the scientifically illiterate and innumerate Al Gore.

Climate change takes a few hundred years, or thousands of years on earth. However, weather change may strike again soon with another few hundred tornadoes, or 500 year flood.

If I was G-d, and I saw all those puke blue UN helmets at the global government meeting, I mean NATO meeting, pushing Americans around, I would send a thousand birds to crap all over them. Very big birds.

The two most important events in climate change, will not happen in the Heartland conference. Recently, Mr. McIntrye, a mathematician and skeptic, finally, after years, obtained the data upon which the hockey puck, and climate change rests. In a few days, including other data bases, his model showed no climate change in our future. His conclusions: The hockey puck models used cherry picked data, or was simply wrong.

The second, and more ominous report came from the National Electric Reliability Council, who is charged to watch the health of the US grids. I summarize their assessment if the EPA climate regs are implemented, “For the United States as a whole, the Planning Reserve Margin is significantly reduced …, significantly deteriorating future bulk power system reliability.” In plain language, the lights will go out, because coal fired power plants will become either illegal, or hideously expensive to operate. They comprise a small half of our generating infrastructure.

Upon this issue, the safety of our nation, will be determined. We are slated to return to the end of the 19 th century in our use of carbon combustion, perhaps 1890, depending how mean the environmentalists are. This coming election will decide who will be in charge of our energy policy for the next four years. In the judgment of this veteran power plant engineer, we are in deep trouble. Even if we changed policy today, built carbon combustion facilities en masse, the US does not have the needed talent, in great supply, to repower our grids.